1 Introduction
1.1 Usage of this file
This file serves to be a supplementary document that describes all the statistics results performed for this project. It may help to test some new questions that are not included in the corresponding slides.
1.2 Experiment designs
This file displays the results of the FaceWord project (data collected at NYU). There are two experiments in this project. In Experiment 1, Chinese participants viewed Chinese faces and characters in four conditions (Layout: intact, exchanged [top and bottom parts were switched], top and bottom) and completed an additional localizer (Chinese faces, Chinese characters, objects, scrambled objects). In Experiment 2, English speakers viewed Chinese characters and English words in four conditions (Layout: intact, exchange, top [top parts of Chinese characters; left two letters for English words] and bottom [bottom parts of Chinese characters; right four letters for English words]) and completed an additional localizer (Caucasian faces, English words, objects, scrambled objects).
1.3 Introduction to the analyses included in this file
For the main runs, analysis is conducted for each ROI separately (FFA1, FFA2, VWFA, LOC).
For each ROI, three analyses are performed:
- Univariate analysis (Repeated-measures ANOVA) is performed to compare the neural responses (beta values) of different conditions.
- E1: 2(Chinese faces vs. Chinese Characters) * 4 (intact, exchange, top vs. bottom);
- E2: 2(Chinese characters vs. English words) * 4 (intact, exchange, top vs. bottom).
- Multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) with
libsvmis used to decode different condition pairs (see below) and one-tail one-sample t-tests is used to test if the pair of conditions can be decoded [whether the accuracy is significantly larger than the chancel level (0.5); one-tail one-sample t-tests].- Pairs in E1:
- face_intact vs. word_intact;
- face_intact vs. face_exchange;
- face_top vs. face_bottom;
- word_intact vs. word_exchange;
- word_top vs. word_bottom.
- Pairs in E2:
- Chinese_intact vs. English_intact;
- Chinese_intact vs. Chinese_exchange;
- Chinese_top vs. Chinese_bottom;
- English_intact vs. English_exchange;
- English_top vs. English_bottom.
- Pairs in E1:
- Similarity of top+bottom to intact vs. exchange: The dependent variable is the probability of top+bottom was decoded as Exchange conditions. Two-tail one-sample t-tests is used to test if top+bottom is more similar to exchange relative to intact.
- If the pattern of top+bottom is more similar to that of exchange relative to intact, the probability (of being decoded as exchange) should be significantly larger than the chance level (0.5).
- If the pattern of top+bottom is more similar to that of intact relative to exchange, the probability (of being decoded as exchange) should be significantly smaller than the chance level (0.5).
1.4 How the labels are defined for each ROI?
- Identify the vertex whose beta value is larger than the surrounding vertices (i.e., the local maxima) for each ROI based on the reference coordinates in previous literature.
- Dilate the region centering at the local maxima and only keep 50% of the “peripheral” vertices whose response were larger. This step is iterated until the size of the ROI reaches the pre-defined size (100mm^2), during which the vertices are masked by a pre-defined label at the threshold of p < .05. In other words, the p-values for all vertices in the labels are smaller than .05 (uncorrected).
1.5 How is the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange calculated?
The probability was estimated for each particiapnt separately:
- The patterns of top and bottom are combined with three different weights (0.5/0.5, 0.25/0.75, 0.75/0.25).
- Supported Vector Machine (
libsvm) is trained with the patterns of intact vs. exchange (10 runs). - The trained model is used to predict the probability of the combined patterns being decoded as exchange [for each run separately].
- The probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange for each participant is calculated by averaging the probability for each run.
2 Preparations
3 Experiment 1: Chinese faces and Chinese characters for Chinese participants
3.1 Load and clean data
3.1.1 Label (ROI) information
3.1.1.1 Size of labels
The above table displays the size (in mm2) of each label for each participant. (NA denotes that this label is not available for that particiapnt.)
3.1.1.2 Number of vertices for each label
The above table displays the number of vertices for each label and each participant. (NA denotes that this label is not available for that particiapnt.)
3.1.1.3 Number of participants for each ROI
3.1.1.4 Number of remaining participants
The above table dispalys the number of participants included in the following analyses for each ROI. (VWFA is only found on the left hemisphere.)
3.1.2 Data for univariate analyses
3.1.3 Data of decoding
3.1.4 Data for the Similarity of top + bottom
3.2 Label:FFA1
3.2.1 Univariate analyses
3.2.1.1 rm-ANOVA
3.2.1.1.1 Left FFA1
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 11 0.27 1.76 .03 .21
## 2 Layout 2.01, 22.10 0.04 7.70 ** .04 .003
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.48, 27.23 0.02 3.43 * .01 .04
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## faces - words 0.141 0.106 11 1.327 0.2113
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.0655 0.0484 33 1.354 0.5365
## intact - top 0.2121 0.0484 33 4.387 0.0006
## intact - bottom 0.1601 0.0484 33 3.310 0.0116
## exchange - top 0.1467 0.0484 33 3.034 0.0231
## exchange - bottom 0.0946 0.0484 33 1.957 0.2250
## top - bottom -0.0521 0.0484 33 -1.077 0.7057
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . faces - words 0.2124 0.1175 16.1 1.807 0.0894
## exchange . faces - words 0.0580 0.1175 16.1 0.493 0.6286
## top . faces - words 0.2527 0.1175 16.1 2.150 0.0471
## bottom . faces - words 0.0416 0.1175 16.1 0.354 0.7281
## . faces intact - exchange 0.1427 0.0633 64.2 2.254 0.0276
## . faces intact - top 0.1920 0.0633 64.2 3.033 0.0035
## . faces intact - bottom 0.2455 0.0633 64.2 3.877 0.0003
## . faces exchange - top 0.0493 0.0633 64.2 0.779 0.4388
## . faces exchange - bottom 0.1028 0.0633 64.2 1.624 0.1093
## . faces top - bottom 0.0535 0.0633 64.2 0.845 0.4014
## . words intact - exchange -0.0118 0.0633 64.2 -0.186 0.8531
## . words intact - top 0.2323 0.0633 64.2 3.669 0.0005
## . words intact - bottom 0.0746 0.0633 64.2 1.179 0.2427
## . words exchange - top 0.2440 0.0633 64.2 3.855 0.0003
## . words exchange - bottom 0.0864 0.0633 64.2 1.365 0.1770
## . words top - bottom -0.1576 0.0633 64.2 -2.490 0.01543.2.1.1.2 Right FFA1
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 16 0.38 15.48 ** .13 .001
## 2 Layout 2.48, 39.61 0.05 4.78 ** .02 .009
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.40, 38.44 0.05 2.66 + .009 .07
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## faces - words 0.418 0.106 16 3.935 0.0012
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.151540 0.0515 48 2.942 0.0250
## intact - top 0.171197 0.0515 48 3.323 0.0090
## intact - bottom 0.151656 0.0515 48 2.944 0.0248
## exchange - top 0.019657 0.0515 48 0.382 0.9809
## exchange - bottom 0.000116 0.0515 48 0.002 1.0000
## top - bottom -0.019541 0.0515 48 -0.379 0.9812
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . faces - words 0.590236 0.123 27.5 4.802 <.0001
## exchange . faces - words 0.335061 0.123 27.5 2.726 0.0110
## top . faces - words 0.374888 0.123 27.5 3.050 0.0050
## bottom . faces - words 0.372958 0.123 27.5 3.034 0.0052
## . faces intact - exchange 0.279127 0.072 96.0 3.875 0.0002
## . faces intact - top 0.278870 0.072 96.0 3.871 0.0002
## . faces intact - bottom 0.260294 0.072 96.0 3.613 0.0005
## . faces exchange - top -0.000257 0.072 96.0 -0.004 0.9972
## . faces exchange - bottom -0.018833 0.072 96.0 -0.261 0.7943
## . faces top - bottom -0.018576 0.072 96.0 -0.258 0.7971
## . words intact - exchange 0.023952 0.072 96.0 0.332 0.7403
## . words intact - top 0.063523 0.072 96.0 0.882 0.3801
## . words intact - bottom 0.043017 0.072 96.0 0.597 0.5518
## . words exchange - top 0.039571 0.072 96.0 0.549 0.5841
## . words exchange - bottom 0.019065 0.072 96.0 0.265 0.7919
## . words top - bottom -0.020506 0.072 96.0 -0.285 0.77653.2.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in FFA1 for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
3.2.2 Decoding
3.2.2.1 One-sample t-test
3.2.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in FFA1 for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
3.2.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
3.2.3.1 One-sample t-test
3.2.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in FFA1. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
3.3 Label:FFA2
3.3.1 Univariate analyses
3.3.1.1 rm-ANOVA
3.3.1.1.1 Left FFA2
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 11 0.07 2.65 .01 .13
## 2 Layout 2.39, 26.30 0.02 6.90 ** .02 .003
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.31, 25.37 0.04 0.21 .001 .84
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## faces - words 0.0908 0.0558 11 1.628 0.1318
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.1022 0.0404 33 2.531 0.0734
## intact - top 0.1830 0.0404 33 4.532 0.0004
## intact - bottom 0.0863 0.0404 33 2.138 0.1624
## exchange - top 0.0808 0.0404 33 2.001 0.2082
## exchange - bottom -0.0159 0.0404 33 -0.394 0.9790
## top - bottom -0.0967 0.0404 33 -2.394 0.0980
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . faces - words 0.13378 0.0822 35.6 1.627 0.1126
## exchange . faces - words 0.07368 0.0822 35.6 0.896 0.3762
## top . faces - words 0.06034 0.0822 35.6 0.734 0.4678
## bottom . faces - words 0.09558 0.0822 35.6 1.162 0.2528
## . faces intact - exchange 0.13228 0.0637 63.5 2.075 0.0420
## . faces intact - top 0.21976 0.0637 63.5 3.448 0.0010
## . faces intact - bottom 0.10544 0.0637 63.5 1.654 0.1030
## . faces exchange - top 0.08748 0.0637 63.5 1.373 0.1747
## . faces exchange - bottom -0.02684 0.0637 63.5 -0.421 0.6751
## . faces top - bottom -0.11433 0.0637 63.5 -1.794 0.0776
## . words intact - exchange 0.07219 0.0637 63.5 1.133 0.2617
## . words intact - top 0.14633 0.0637 63.5 2.296 0.0250
## . words intact - bottom 0.06724 0.0637 63.5 1.055 0.2954
## . words exchange - top 0.07414 0.0637 63.5 1.163 0.2491
## . words exchange - bottom -0.00494 0.0637 63.5 -0.078 0.9384
## . words top - bottom -0.07909 0.0637 63.5 -1.241 0.21933.3.1.1.2 Right FFA2
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 12 0.20 9.78 ** .10 .009
## 2 Layout 2.55, 30.55 0.03 8.80 *** .03 .0004
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.42, 29.00 0.03 3.41 * .01 .04
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## faces - words 0.277 0.0885 12 3.128 0.0087
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.18454 0.0413 36 4.472 0.0004
## intact - top 0.17936 0.0413 36 4.346 0.0006
## intact - bottom 0.14400 0.0413 36 3.489 0.0068
## exchange - top -0.00517 0.0413 36 -0.125 0.9993
## exchange - bottom -0.04054 0.0413 36 -0.982 0.7603
## top - bottom -0.03537 0.0413 36 -0.857 0.8267
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . faces - words 0.44174 0.1040 21.8 4.249 0.0003
## exchange . faces - words 0.16857 0.1040 21.8 1.622 0.1193
## top . faces - words 0.25457 0.1040 21.8 2.449 0.0228
## bottom . faces - words 0.24210 0.1040 21.8 2.329 0.0295
## . faces intact - exchange 0.32112 0.0607 71.6 5.288 <.0001
## . faces intact - top 0.27295 0.0607 71.6 4.494 <.0001
## . faces intact - bottom 0.24382 0.0607 71.6 4.015 0.0001
## . faces exchange - top -0.04817 0.0607 71.6 -0.793 0.4303
## . faces exchange - bottom -0.07730 0.0607 71.6 -1.273 0.2072
## . faces top - bottom -0.02913 0.0607 71.6 -0.480 0.6329
## . words intact - exchange 0.04795 0.0607 71.6 0.790 0.4324
## . words intact - top 0.08578 0.0607 71.6 1.412 0.1622
## . words intact - bottom 0.04417 0.0607 71.6 0.727 0.4694
## . words exchange - top 0.03782 0.0607 71.6 0.623 0.5354
## . words exchange - bottom -0.00378 0.0607 71.6 -0.062 0.9506
## . words top - bottom -0.04160 0.0607 71.6 -0.685 0.49563.3.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in FFA2 for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
3.3.2 Decoding
3.3.2.1 One-sample t-test
3.3.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in FFA2 for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
3.3.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
3.3.3.1 One-sample t-test
3.3.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in FFA2. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
3.4 Label: left Visual Word Form Area (VWFA)
3.4.1 Univariate analyses
3.4.1.1 rm-ANOVA
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 17 0.21 100.25 *** .25 <.0001
## 2 Layout 2.53, 43.04 0.03 4.04 * .005 .02
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.57, 43.65 0.03 5.40 ** .005 .005
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## faces - words -0.773 0.0772 17 -10.012 <.0001
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange -0.05205 0.0368 51 -1.413 0.4974
## intact - top 0.07544 0.0368 51 2.048 0.1844
## intact - bottom 0.00925 0.0368 51 0.251 0.9944
## exchange - top 0.12748 0.0368 51 3.460 0.0059
## exchange - bottom 0.06130 0.0368 51 1.664 0.3531
## top - bottom -0.06619 0.0368 51 -1.796 0.2868
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . faces - words -0.69862 0.0881 27.9 -7.932 <.0001
## exchange . faces - words -0.90436 0.0881 27.9 -10.268 <.0001
## top . faces - words -0.65964 0.0881 27.9 -7.490 <.0001
## bottom . faces - words -0.82940 0.0881 27.9 -9.417 <.0001
## . faces intact - exchange 0.05082 0.0505 101.6 1.005 0.3171
## . faces intact - top 0.05595 0.0505 101.6 1.107 0.2710
## . faces intact - bottom 0.07464 0.0505 101.6 1.477 0.1429
## . faces exchange - top 0.00513 0.0505 101.6 0.101 0.9194
## . faces exchange - bottom 0.02382 0.0505 101.6 0.471 0.6385
## . faces top - bottom 0.01869 0.0505 101.6 0.370 0.7123
## . words intact - exchange -0.15491 0.0505 101.6 -3.065 0.0028
## . words intact - top 0.09493 0.0505 101.6 1.878 0.0633
## . words intact - bottom -0.05614 0.0505 101.6 -1.111 0.2694
## . words exchange - top 0.24984 0.0505 101.6 4.943 <.0001
## . words exchange - bottom 0.09878 0.0505 101.6 1.954 0.0534
## . words top - bottom -0.15106 0.0505 101.6 -2.989 0.00353.4.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in VWFA for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: *, p < .05
3.4.2 Decoding
3.4.2.1 One-sample t-test
3.4.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in VWFA for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: ***, p <.001
3.4.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
3.4.3.1 One-sample t-test
3.4.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in VWFA. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
3.5 Label:Lateral Occipital Cortex
3.5.1 Univariate analyses
3.5.1.1 rm-ANOVA
3.5.1.1.1 Left LO
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 18 0.25 20.47 *** .06 .0003
## 2 Layout 2.40, 43.14 0.05 4.27 * .006 .02
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.40, 43.22 0.03 0.33 .0003 .76
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## faces - words -0.366 0.081 18 -4.524 0.0003
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.00111 0.0439 54 0.025 1.0000
## intact - top 0.13678 0.0439 54 3.113 0.0152
## intact - bottom 0.04640 0.0439 54 1.056 0.7174
## exchange - top 0.13567 0.0439 54 3.088 0.0163
## exchange - bottom 0.04529 0.0439 54 1.031 0.7323
## top - bottom -0.09038 0.0439 54 -2.057 0.1805
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . faces - words -0.33462 0.0927 30 -3.610 0.0011
## exchange . faces - words -0.35596 0.0927 30 -3.841 0.0006
## top . faces - words -0.36872 0.0927 30 -3.978 0.0004
## bottom . faces - words -0.40576 0.0927 30 -4.378 0.0001
## . faces intact - exchange 0.01178 0.0573 105 0.205 0.8377
## . faces intact - top 0.15383 0.0573 105 2.682 0.0085
## . faces intact - bottom 0.08197 0.0573 105 1.429 0.1559
## . faces exchange - top 0.14205 0.0573 105 2.477 0.0148
## . faces exchange - bottom 0.07019 0.0573 105 1.224 0.2237
## . faces top - bottom -0.07186 0.0573 105 -1.253 0.2130
## . words intact - exchange -0.00955 0.0573 105 -0.167 0.8680
## . words intact - top 0.11974 0.0573 105 2.088 0.0392
## . words intact - bottom 0.01083 0.0573 105 0.189 0.8505
## . words exchange - top 0.12929 0.0573 105 2.254 0.0262
## . words exchange - bottom 0.02039 0.0573 105 0.356 0.7229
## . words top - bottom -0.10890 0.0573 105 -1.899 0.06033.5.1.1.2 Right LO
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 17 0.20 8.43 ** .02 .010
## 2 Layout 2.18, 37.07 0.07 1.47 .002 .24
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.63, 44.74 0.03 1.27 .001 .30
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## faces - words -0.217 0.0747 17 -2.904 0.0099
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.0825 0.0532 51 1.551 0.4156
## intact - top 0.1037 0.0532 51 1.948 0.2212
## intact - bottom 0.0449 0.0532 51 0.843 0.8339
## exchange - top 0.0212 0.0532 51 0.398 0.9785
## exchange - bottom -0.0377 0.0532 51 -0.708 0.8935
## top - bottom -0.0589 0.0532 51 -1.106 0.6877
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . faces - words -0.14282 0.0893 32.6 -1.600 0.1193
## exchange . faces - words -0.29775 0.0893 32.6 -3.335 0.0021
## top . faces - words -0.21835 0.0893 32.6 -2.446 0.0200
## bottom . faces - words -0.20910 0.0893 32.6 -2.342 0.0254
## . faces intact - exchange 0.16001 0.0665 94.5 2.406 0.0181
## . faces intact - top 0.14149 0.0665 94.5 2.127 0.0360
## . faces intact - bottom 0.07800 0.0665 94.5 1.173 0.2439
## . faces exchange - top -0.01853 0.0665 94.5 -0.279 0.7812
## . faces exchange - bottom -0.08202 0.0665 94.5 -1.233 0.2206
## . faces top - bottom -0.06349 0.0665 94.5 -0.954 0.3423
## . words intact - exchange 0.00508 0.0665 94.5 0.076 0.9393
## . words intact - top 0.06595 0.0665 94.5 0.992 0.3240
## . words intact - bottom 0.01171 0.0665 94.5 0.176 0.8606
## . words exchange - top 0.06087 0.0665 94.5 0.915 0.3625
## . words exchange - bottom 0.00663 0.0665 94.5 0.100 0.9208
## . words top - bottom -0.05424 0.0665 94.5 -0.815 0.41693.5.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in LO for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: *, p < .05
3.5.2 Decoding
3.5.2.1 One-sample t-test
3.5.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in LO for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: , p < .01; *, p <.001
3.5.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
3.5.3.1 One-sample t-test
3.5.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in LO. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
4 Experiment 2: English and Chinese characters for Caucasian participants
4.1 Load and clean data
4.1.1 Label (ROI) information
4.1.1.1 Size of labels
The above table displays the size (in mm2) of each label for each participant. (NA denotes that this label is not available for that particiapnt.)
4.1.1.2 Number of vertices for each label
The above table displays the number of vertices for each label and each participant. (NA denotes that this label is not available for that particiapnt.)
4.1.1.3 Number of participants for each ROI
4.1.1.4 Number of remaining participants
The above table dispalys the number of participants included in the following analyses for each ROI. (VWFA is only found on the left hemisphere.)
4.1.2 Data for univariate analyses
4.1.3 Data of decoding
4.1.4 Data for the Similarity of top + bottom
4.2 Label:FFA1
4.2.1 Univariate analyses
4.2.1.1 rm-ANOVA
4.2.1.1.1 Left FFA1
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 11 0.22 12.53 ** .10 .005
## 2 Layout 1.73, 19.00 0.03 3.34 + .007 .06
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.25, 24.78 0.04 4.10 * .01 .03
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## English - Chinese 0.338 0.0954 11 3.539 0.0046
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange -0.10656 0.0394 33 -2.706 0.0499
## intact - part1 0.00125 0.0394 33 0.032 1.0000
## intact - part2 -0.04698 0.0394 33 -1.193 0.6354
## exchange - part1 0.10781 0.0394 33 2.738 0.0464
## exchange - part2 0.05958 0.0394 33 1.513 0.4414
## part1 - part2 -0.04823 0.0394 33 -1.225 0.6159
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . English - Chinese 0.34336 0.1134 20.8 3.027 0.0065
## exchange . English - Chinese 0.44662 0.1134 20.8 3.937 0.0008
## part1 . English - Chinese 0.13346 0.1134 20.8 1.176 0.2527
## part2 . English - Chinese 0.42759 0.1134 20.8 3.769 0.0011
## . English intact - exchange -0.15819 0.0637 62.5 -2.483 0.0157
## . English intact - part1 0.10620 0.0637 62.5 1.667 0.1005
## . English intact - part2 -0.08909 0.0637 62.5 -1.398 0.1669
## . English exchange - part1 0.26440 0.0637 62.5 4.150 0.0001
## . English exchange - part2 0.06910 0.0637 62.5 1.085 0.2823
## . English part1 - part2 -0.19530 0.0637 62.5 -3.065 0.0032
## . Chinese intact - exchange -0.05493 0.0637 62.5 -0.862 0.3919
## . Chinese intact - part1 -0.10370 0.0637 62.5 -1.628 0.1086
## . Chinese intact - part2 -0.00486 0.0637 62.5 -0.076 0.9394
## . Chinese exchange - part1 -0.04877 0.0637 62.5 -0.765 0.4469
## . Chinese exchange - part2 0.05007 0.0637 62.5 0.786 0.4349
## . Chinese part1 - part2 0.09884 0.0637 62.5 1.551 0.12594.2.1.1.2 Right FFA1
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 14 0.13 0.65 .008 .43
## 2 Layout 2.74, 38.34 0.03 2.08 .02 .12
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.18, 30.55 0.03 1.39 .009 .26
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## English - Chinese -0.0522 0.0648 14 -0.805 0.4341
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.0605 0.0406 42 1.490 0.4522
## intact - part1 -0.0299 0.0406 42 -0.738 0.8814
## intact - part2 0.0445 0.0406 42 1.098 0.6929
## exchange - part1 -0.0904 0.0406 42 -2.228 0.1323
## exchange - part2 -0.0159 0.0406 42 -0.393 0.9792
## part1 - part2 0.0745 0.0406 42 1.835 0.2716
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . English - Chinese 0.00632 0.0794 29.1 0.080 0.9371
## exchange . English - Chinese -0.13621 0.0794 29.1 -1.716 0.0969
## part1 . English - Chinese -0.06054 0.0794 29.1 -0.763 0.4519
## part2 . English - Chinese -0.01847 0.0794 29.1 -0.233 0.8177
## . English intact - exchange 0.13175 0.0552 83.5 2.387 0.0192
## . English intact - part1 0.00350 0.0552 83.5 0.063 0.9496
## . English intact - part2 0.05694 0.0552 83.5 1.032 0.3052
## . English exchange - part1 -0.12825 0.0552 83.5 -2.324 0.0226
## . English exchange - part2 -0.07481 0.0552 83.5 -1.355 0.1789
## . English part1 - part2 0.05344 0.0552 83.5 0.968 0.3357
## . Chinese intact - exchange -0.01078 0.0552 83.5 -0.195 0.8456
## . Chinese intact - part1 -0.06337 0.0552 83.5 -1.148 0.2542
## . Chinese intact - part2 0.03215 0.0552 83.5 0.582 0.5618
## . Chinese exchange - part1 -0.05258 0.0552 83.5 -0.953 0.3434
## . Chinese exchange - part2 0.04293 0.0552 83.5 0.778 0.4389
## . Chinese part1 - part2 0.09551 0.0552 83.5 1.731 0.08724.2.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in FFA1 for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
4.2.2 Decoding
4.2.2.1 One-sample t-test
4.2.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in FFA1 for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
4.2.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
4.2.3.1 One-sample t-test
4.2.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in FFA1. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
4.3 Label:FFA2
4.3.1 Univariate analyses
4.3.1.1 rm-ANOVA
4.3.1.1.1 Left FFA2
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 12 0.18 8.65 * .08 .01
## 2 Layout 2.52, 30.24 0.02 0.84 .002 .47
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.56, 30.70 0.03 2.83 + .01 .06
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## English - Chinese 0.247 0.084 12 2.940 0.0124
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.01909 0.0343 36 0.556 0.9442
## intact - part1 0.02635 0.0343 36 0.768 0.8683
## intact - part2 -0.02327 0.0343 36 -0.678 0.9047
## exchange - part1 0.00726 0.0343 36 0.212 0.9966
## exchange - part2 -0.04236 0.0343 36 -1.234 0.6095
## part1 - part2 -0.04962 0.0343 36 -1.446 0.4799
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . English - Chinese 0.3426 0.1002 23.0 3.418 0.0024
## exchange . English - Chinese 0.2466 0.1002 23.0 2.460 0.0218
## part1 . English - Chinese 0.0986 0.1002 23.0 0.984 0.3355
## part2 . English - Chinese 0.2999 0.1002 23.0 2.992 0.0065
## . English intact - exchange 0.0671 0.0564 67.5 1.191 0.2379
## . English intact - part1 0.1484 0.0564 67.5 2.633 0.0105
## . English intact - part2 -0.0019 0.0564 67.5 -0.034 0.9732
## . English exchange - part1 0.0813 0.0564 67.5 1.442 0.1539
## . English exchange - part2 -0.0690 0.0564 67.5 -1.224 0.2250
## . English part1 - part2 -0.1503 0.0564 67.5 -2.666 0.0096
## . Chinese intact - exchange -0.0289 0.0564 67.5 -0.513 0.6096
## . Chinese intact - part1 -0.0957 0.0564 67.5 -1.697 0.0942
## . Chinese intact - part2 -0.0446 0.0564 67.5 -0.792 0.4311
## . Chinese exchange - part1 -0.0667 0.0564 67.5 -1.184 0.2404
## . Chinese exchange - part2 -0.0157 0.0564 67.5 -0.279 0.7811
## . Chinese part1 - part2 0.0510 0.0564 67.5 0.905 0.36854.3.1.1.2 Right FFA2
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 17 0.04 0.01 <.0001 .94
## 2 Layout 2.52, 42.90 0.01 0.17 .0007 .89
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.26, 38.48 0.02 0.74 .006 .50
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## English - Chinese 0.00267 0.0349 17 0.077 0.9399
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.01481 0.0228 51 0.649 0.9154
## intact - part1 0.00129 0.0228 51 0.056 0.9999
## intact - part2 0.00568 0.0228 51 0.249 0.9945
## exchange - part1 -0.01352 0.0228 51 -0.593 0.9338
## exchange - part2 -0.00913 0.0228 51 -0.400 0.9781
## part1 - part2 0.00440 0.0228 51 0.193 0.9974
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . English - Chinese 0.04391 0.0526 57 0.835 0.4073
## exchange . English - Chinese 0.00180 0.0526 57 0.034 0.9728
## part1 . English - Chinese -0.04967 0.0526 57 -0.944 0.3489
## part2 . English - Chinese 0.01464 0.0526 57 0.278 0.7817
## . English intact - exchange 0.03587 0.0394 92 0.910 0.3651
## . English intact - part1 0.04808 0.0394 92 1.220 0.2256
## . English intact - part2 0.02032 0.0394 92 0.516 0.6074
## . English exchange - part1 0.01221 0.0394 92 0.310 0.7574
## . English exchange - part2 -0.01555 0.0394 92 -0.395 0.6941
## . English part1 - part2 -0.02776 0.0394 92 -0.704 0.4830
## . Chinese intact - exchange -0.00624 0.0394 92 -0.158 0.8744
## . Chinese intact - part1 -0.04550 0.0394 92 -1.155 0.2512
## . Chinese intact - part2 -0.00895 0.0394 92 -0.227 0.8208
## . Chinese exchange - part1 -0.03926 0.0394 92 -0.996 0.3218
## . Chinese exchange - part2 -0.00271 0.0394 92 -0.069 0.9454
## . Chinese part1 - part2 0.03655 0.0394 92 0.927 0.35614.3.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in FFA2 for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
4.3.2 Decoding
4.3.2.1 One-sample t-test
4.3.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in FFA2 for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: “*p<0.1;**p<0.05;***p<0.01”
4.3.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
4.3.3.1 One-sample t-test
4.3.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in FFA2. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
4.4 Label: left Visual Word Form Area (VWFA)
4.4.1 Univariate analyses
4.4.1.1 rm-ANOVA
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 13 0.26 66.19 *** .35 <.0001
## 2 Layout 2.25, 29.19 0.03 10.51 *** .02 .0002
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 1.62, 21.06 0.06 9.23 ** .03 .002
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## English - Chinese 0.786 0.0966 13 8.135 <.0001
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange -0.1739 0.0366 39 -4.748 0.0002
## intact - part1 -0.0150 0.0366 39 -0.411 0.9763
## intact - part2 -0.1217 0.0366 39 -3.323 0.0101
## exchange - part1 0.1588 0.0366 39 4.337 0.0006
## exchange - part2 0.0522 0.0366 39 1.425 0.4917
## part1 - part2 -0.1066 0.0366 39 -2.912 0.0289
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . English - Chinese 0.7486 0.1124 22.9 6.662 <.0001
## exchange . English - Chinese 0.9659 0.1124 22.9 8.596 <.0001
## part1 . English - Chinese 0.5173 0.1124 22.9 4.604 0.0001
## part2 . English - Chinese 0.9114 0.1124 22.9 8.111 <.0001
## . English intact - exchange -0.2825 0.0595 73.7 -4.749 <.0001
## . English intact - part1 0.1006 0.0595 73.7 1.692 0.0950
## . English intact - part2 -0.2031 0.0595 73.7 -3.414 0.0010
## . English exchange - part1 0.3831 0.0595 73.7 6.441 <.0001
## . English exchange - part2 0.0794 0.0595 73.7 1.335 0.1859
## . English part1 - part2 -0.3037 0.0595 73.7 -5.106 <.0001
## . Chinese intact - exchange -0.0652 0.0595 73.7 -1.096 0.2766
## . Chinese intact - part1 -0.1307 0.0595 73.7 -2.197 0.0312
## . Chinese intact - part2 -0.0403 0.0595 73.7 -0.677 0.5006
## . Chinese exchange - part1 -0.0655 0.0595 73.7 -1.101 0.2746
## . Chinese exchange - part2 0.0249 0.0595 73.7 0.419 0.6762
## . Chinese part1 - part2 0.0904 0.0595 73.7 1.520 0.13284.4.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in VWFA for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: *, p < .05
4.4.2 Decoding
4.4.2.1 One-sample t-test
4.4.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in VWFA for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: ***, p <.001
4.4.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
4.4.3.1 One-sample t-test
4.4.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in VWFA. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
4.5 Label:Lateral Occipital Cortex
4.5.1 Univariate analyses
4.5.1.1 rm-ANOVA
4.5.1.1.1 Left LO
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 15 0.19 4.47 + .01 .05
## 2 Layout 1.75, 26.29 0.05 1.37 .002 .27
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.06, 30.86 0.07 1.76 .004 .19
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## English - Chinese -0.161 0.0763 15 -2.115 0.0516
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange -0.05443 0.0416 45 -1.310 0.5617
## intact - part1 -0.08268 0.0416 45 -1.989 0.2072
## intact - part2 -0.04861 0.0416 45 -1.170 0.6489
## exchange - part1 -0.02825 0.0416 45 -0.680 0.9043
## exchange - part2 0.00582 0.0416 45 0.140 0.9990
## part1 - part2 0.03407 0.0416 45 0.820 0.8448
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . English - Chinese -0.1029 0.1002 38.0 -1.027 0.3109
## exchange . English - Chinese -0.0778 0.1002 38.0 -0.776 0.4426
## part1 . English - Chinese -0.3003 0.1002 38.0 -2.996 0.0048
## part2 . English - Chinese -0.1644 0.1002 38.0 -1.640 0.1092
## . English intact - exchange -0.0670 0.0674 85.1 -0.994 0.3230
## . English intact - part1 0.0160 0.0674 85.1 0.237 0.8131
## . English intact - part2 -0.0179 0.0674 85.1 -0.265 0.7917
## . English exchange - part1 0.0830 0.0674 85.1 1.231 0.2216
## . English exchange - part2 0.0492 0.0674 85.1 0.729 0.4679
## . English part1 - part2 -0.0338 0.0674 85.1 -0.502 0.6169
## . Chinese intact - exchange -0.0418 0.0674 85.1 -0.621 0.5364
## . Chinese intact - part1 -0.1813 0.0674 85.1 -2.690 0.0086
## . Chinese intact - part2 -0.0794 0.0674 85.1 -1.177 0.2424
## . Chinese exchange - part1 -0.1395 0.0674 85.1 -2.069 0.0415
## . Chinese exchange - part2 -0.0375 0.0674 85.1 -0.556 0.5794
## . Chinese part1 - part2 0.1020 0.0674 85.1 1.513 0.13404.5.1.1.2 Right LO
## Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
##
## Response: Response
## Effect df MSE F ges p.value
## 1 FaceWord 1, 16 0.14 45.30 *** .03 <.0001
## 2 Layout 2.29, 36.59 0.07 3.07 + .002 .05
## 3 FaceWord:Layout 2.16, 34.56 0.04 1.01 .0004 .38
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Sphericity correction method: GG
Posthoc analysis for the main effects:
## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## English - Chinese -0.439 0.0652 16 -6.730 <.0001
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: Layout## contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact - exchange 0.08519 0.057 48 1.494 0.4490
## intact - part1 -0.08754 0.057 48 -1.535 0.4250
## intact - part2 -0.00879 0.057 48 -0.154 0.9987
## exchange - part1 -0.17273 0.057 48 -3.029 0.0199
## exchange - part2 -0.09398 0.057 48 -1.648 0.3621
## part1 - part2 0.07875 0.057 48 1.381 0.5172
##
## Results are averaged over the levels of: FaceWord
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates
Results of simple effect analysis (uncorrected):
## Layout FaceWord contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
## intact . English - Chinese -0.3872 0.0835 37.9 -4.638 <.0001
## exchange . English - Chinese -0.5199 0.0835 37.9 -6.227 <.0001
## part1 . English - Chinese -0.3982 0.0835 37.9 -4.770 <.0001
## part2 . English - Chinese -0.4497 0.0835 37.9 -5.387 <.0001
## . English intact - exchange 0.1515 0.0712 88.8 2.129 0.0360
## . English intact - part1 -0.0820 0.0712 88.8 -1.153 0.2522
## . English intact - part2 0.0225 0.0712 88.8 0.316 0.7529
## . English exchange - part1 -0.2336 0.0712 88.8 -3.282 0.0015
## . English exchange - part2 -0.1291 0.0712 88.8 -1.813 0.0731
## . English part1 - part2 0.1045 0.0712 88.8 1.468 0.1455
## . Chinese intact - exchange 0.0188 0.0712 88.8 0.265 0.7918
## . Chinese intact - part1 -0.0931 0.0712 88.8 -1.308 0.1944
## . Chinese intact - part2 -0.0401 0.0712 88.8 -0.563 0.5750
## . Chinese exchange - part1 -0.1119 0.0712 88.8 -1.572 0.1194
## . Chinese exchange - part2 -0.0589 0.0712 88.8 -0.828 0.4101
## . Chinese part1 - part2 0.0530 0.0712 88.8 0.745 0.45844.5.1.2 Plot
The above figure shows the neural respones (beta values) in LO for each condition. The numbers are the p-values for the tests of differences between intact vs. exchange in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: *, p < .05
4.5.2 Decoding
4.5.2.1 One-sample t-test
4.5.2.2 Plot
The above figure shows the decoding accuracy in LO for each pair. The numbers are the p-values for the one-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: , p < .01; *, p <.001
4.5.3 Similarity of top + bottom to intact vs. exchange
4.5.3.1 One-sample t-test
4.5.3.2 Plot
The above figure shows the probability of top+bottom being decoded as exchange conditions in LO. Patterns of top and bottom were combined with different weights, i.e., “face_top0.25-face_bottom0.75” denotes the linear combinations of face_top and face_bottom with the weights of 0.25/0.75. The numbers are the p-values for the two-tail one-sample t-tests against the chance level (0.5) in that condition. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
5 Versions of packages used
## R version 3.6.3 (2020-02-29)
## Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0 (64-bit)
## Running under: macOS Mojave 10.14.5
##
## Matrix products: default
## BLAS: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/3.6/Resources/lib/libRblas.0.dylib
## LAPACK: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/3.6/Resources/lib/libRlapack.dylib
##
## locale:
## [1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8
##
## attached base packages:
## [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
##
## other attached packages:
## [1] ggpubr_0.2.5 magrittr_2.0.1 emmeans_1.4.7 lmerTest_3.1-0 afex_0.25-1 lme4_1.1-21 Matrix_1.2-18 forcats_0.4.0 stringr_1.4.0 dplyr_0.8.5 purrr_0.3.3 readr_1.3.1 tidyr_1.0.2 tibble_3.0.1 ggplot2_3.3.0 tidyverse_1.2.1
##
## loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
## [1] httr_1.4.1 jsonlite_1.7.1 splines_3.6.3 carData_3.0-3 modelr_0.1.5 assertthat_0.2.1 cellranger_1.1.0 yaml_2.2.1 numDeriv_2016.8-1.1 pillar_1.4.4 backports_1.1.5 lattice_0.20-38 glue_1.4.2 digest_0.6.27 ggsignif_0.6.0 rvest_0.3.5 minqa_1.2.4 colorspace_1.4-1 cowplot_1.0.0 htmltools_0.5.0 plyr_1.8.6 pkgconfig_2.0.3
## [23] broom_0.5.3.9000 haven_2.2.0 xtable_1.8-4 mvtnorm_1.0-11 scales_1.0.0 openxlsx_4.1.3 rio_0.5.16 generics_0.0.2 car_3.0-5 ellipsis_0.3.1 withr_2.1.2 cli_2.0.2 crayon_1.3.4 readxl_1.3.1 estimability_1.3 evaluate_0.14 fansi_0.4.1 nlme_3.1-144 MASS_7.3-51.5 xml2_1.2.2 foreign_0.8-75 data.table_1.12.6
## [45] hms_0.5.3 lifecycle_0.2.0 munsell_0.5.0 zip_2.0.4 compiler_3.6.3 rlang_0.4.8 grid_3.6.3 nloptr_1.2.1 rstudioapi_0.11 labeling_0.3 rmarkdown_2.1 boot_1.3-24 gtable_0.3.0 abind_1.4-5 curl_4.3 reshape2_1.4.3 R6_2.4.1 lubridate_1.7.4 knitr_1.30 stringi_1.5.3 parallel_3.6.3 Rcpp_1.0.4.6
## [67] vctrs_0.3.1 tidyselect_1.0.0 xfun_0.19 coda_0.19-3A work by Haiyang Jin